Summary: Mr D complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for development of a GP practice near his home. We have found fault but this has not caused injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for development of a GP practice near his home. In particular he says the Council did not properly consider the comments of the Highways Authority.
2. Mr D says as a result local residents will be adversely affected by a significant increase in traffic and parking problems.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr D about his complaint and considered the information he sent, the planning documents, the Council’s response to my enquiries, and the webcast of the planning committee meeting.
6. Mr D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning permission

7. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives councils the power to decide if planning applications should be approved, refused or approved subject to planning conditions. Councils must decide the application under their development plan unless any other material considerations suggest otherwise.
8. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as reduction in the value of a property. They include issues such as overlooking, overshadowing and privacy.
9. After a local planning authority has received a planning application, it will consult a number of different groups. These include neighbouring residents, community groups and “statutory consultees” such as the Highways Authority. The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 says planning authorities should notify consultees of the application and they must not determine the application until at least 21 days later. The council must take into account any representations received from any consultee but (in most cases) consultees cannot direct that a planning application be refused.
10. Councils' case officers need to consider the proposed development. The case officer's report should identify the key deciding issues, have accurate descriptions and summarise responses from consultees and notifications. The report should also refer to the development policies, national policies and other material considerations relevant to deciding the application. The case officer should recommend a decision that follows from a reasoned analysis of the relevant issues.

What happened

11. In July 2020 a GP practice in Mr D’s area applied for planning permission for an extension which would create 10 additional new rooms. This would double the capacity of the practice. The proposals included eight additional car parking spaces on site.
12. The Council carried out consultation, including with the Highways Authority which replied on 3 September 2020 requesting additional information. Specifically, it requested a technical note from the applicant outlining current and predicted trip rates, and how the site would meet the increase in demand for parking spaces. It also asked for more information about alternative means of travel such as bus and cycle routes. The Highways Authority said: “While there is no objection to this application in principle, a holding objection is recommended pending the provision of the [technical note].”
13. The technical note was received by the Council on 19 October 2020, published on its planning website, and considered in the case officer's report. However the Council did not send the technical note to the Highways Authority until 17 November, two days before the planning committee meeting.
14. The technical note concluded that 11 - 14 car journeys were expected to take place in the highway peak periods and 17 journeys during the site’s operational peak and that this would not have a material impact on the local transport network. The note said the additional parking was deemed sufficient and suggested the site had access to a good level of walking/cycling routes and public transport.
15. The application was considered by a planning case officer, who wrote a report. The case officer's report included:
• a description of the proposal and the site;
• a summary of relevant planning history;
• comments from neighbours and other consultees, including the Highways Authority’s initial response that it did not object in principle but needed more information and had therefore recommended a “holding objection”;
• relevant planning policy and guidance; and
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including the concerns of objectors.
16. The report assessed the impact on highways and parking. It said the technical note had indicated there would not be a material impact on the local transport network and that car parking spaces would be increased. In considering future demand for parking the report said the movement of additional GP consultations to telephone and e-consultations, and the availability of a prescription machine on site, were expected relieve the amount of time and frequency of cars on site. As a result, the proposal was unlikely to significantly impact highway safety.
17. The report concluded that the proposal was considered to provide an effective approach to improving healthcare facilities, would not have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the property and area or amenities of neighbouring properties. It therefore complied with relevant planning policies and approval was recommended.
18. On 16 November, a local community group sent the case officer and chair of the planning committee a number of criticisms of the applicant’s technical note. In particular the group was concerned about the methodologies used to compile the data. There were significant concerns about the impact of expansion of the practice on traffic and parking. This additional representation was highlighted in an update paper provided to the committee before the meeting.
19. The Council then sought comments on the technical note from the Highways Authority. On the evening of 18 November the Highways Authority emailed the Council that it was “unlikely to object from a highway perspective as the impact on the wider highway network was likely to be fairly low.” But it remained concerned about parking due to emergency vehicles access being potentially affected and that parking may spill out onto local roads.
20. The Highways Authority also sent a detailed response to the technical note which was critical of the methodology used and its analysis. The Highways Authority was concerned the number of GP consulting rooms and parameters used in the trip calculations were wrong. It also considered the parking surveys used were not acceptable as they had been carried out whilst COVID-19 restrictions were affecting the operation of the GP practice. As a result, it considered no information had been provided to demonstrate the car park could accommodate the increase in demand. The note concluded the Highways Authority could not confirm the development was unlikely to result in any material highway/transportation implications due to insufficient information and recommended a holding objection.
21. The officers reviewed the highways response but did not consider it raised any new material planning issues that had not already been covered in the case officer’s report. It was uploaded to the Council’s planning website and given to the committee chair.
22. At the planning committee the next day, an objector referred to concerns about the technical note and flaws in its methodology but the case officer did not mention the highways response.
23. There was a discussion about the increase in demand for the GP practice and how this would affect traffic and parking. It was noted the GP practice was currently at full capacity. It was explained there were currently 10 GP consulting rooms. In the part of the building to be extended there were currently four rooms, two of which were not used by GPs. The extension would add a further 10 rooms. So, in total the number of GP consulting rooms at the practice would increase from 10 to 20. A major development nearby was likely to increase the number of people using the practice over the next 10 to 20 years, but the local NHS was currently considering the practice’s catchment area and there had been no decision as yet about how much the practice would expand.
24. The committee considered (amongst other things) the impact on traffic, highway safety and parking and noted the poor public transport to the practice. The chair summed up the concerns that had been raised about these matters before the decision was made. The committee considered the benefits of the development outweighed the concerns and unanimously approved the application. It asked for an informative note to be provided to the applicant about traffic/road safety signage.

Mr D’s complaint

25. Mr D complained to the Council on 17 December that the Highways Authority response to the technical note was not considered at the meeting and members had not been made aware of its holding objection. He was concerned that there was a lack of robust evidence that the extension would not cause traffic generation, safety and parking problems.
26. The Council replied on 11 January 2021. It said the Council did not consider that the highways response altered the recommendation for approval of the application. The committee had listened to concerns about traffic and parking before reaching its decision.
27. Mr D remained dissatisfied and asked for his complaint to be escalated to the next stage. The Council sent its final response on 29 January. This said the Council accepted it would have been useful for the case officer to notify the committee of the Highways Authority response. However, officers considered that, despite the inadequacies in the technical note, the impact on the highway would be minimal. The Highways Authority holding objection was referred to in the case officer’s report and it had advised it was unlikely to object. Officers had therefore not changed the recommendation in the report.
28. The Council considered the planning decision had been properly taken after discussion at the committee, which had noted the concerns about parking and traffic, considered all material planning considerations, and was satisfied that overall, the proposal was acceptable.
29. Mr D came to the Ombudsman. He asked why the Highways Authority had not been aware of the technical note sooner and why it was not raised in the committee meeting.

My findings

30. The Ombudsman, when dealing with complaints about the granting of planning permission, cannot consider whether the decision was right or wrong. It is the role of the planning system, not the Ombudsman, to decide on an application. It is not for me to determine whether the extension causes such an impact on traffic and parking that the application should have been refused. My role is to determine whether there has been administrative fault in the way the Council made its decision to approve the application.
31. The Council consulted the Highways Authority in line with the regulations, but it did not send the technical note until 17 November. Although it was uploaded to the Council’s website, I consider it would have been better practice to send it to the Highways Authority directly and can see no good reason why it was not sent sooner. I therefore find this was fault.
32. This resulted in the Highways Authority’s concerns about the technical note not arriving until after working hours on the 18 November, which was too late for them to be included in the committee’s papers. It is unclear whether the paper was circulated to the committee, though Mr D says the chair of the committee was aware of it prior to the meeting. I would expect officers to have made members aware of the up-to-date view of the Highways Authority at the meeting as the issues in the technical note were relevant to a material planning consideration. I find it was fault not to do so.
33. As the Highways Authority comments brought into question the accuracy of the technical note’s conclusions, it could be argued members were not making a decision in full possession of all relevant information. I have therefore firstly considered whether the Highways Authority made comments which may have been contrary to anything written in the case officer’s report.
34. The report says highways had given a holding objection until the technical note was provided, it then goes on to summarise the technical note’s conclusions. It refers to objections in relation to traffic, parking and highway safety. The report concludes that the development was unlikely to have a significant impact on highway safety. The Highways Authority view was that there was not enough information to determine the impact. However, planning authorities can choose to override highway authorities’ concerns and I do not consider the highways response contradicts what was in the report. I note that the Highways Authority was concerned the technical note stated there would be 10 new rooms rather than 14, but this was correct – the plans were for 10 new rooms.
35. Officers decided the highways comments did not alter their recommendation for approval or add any new material considerations. That does not mean the committee would have taken the same view. I have therefore secondly considered how the committee considered the matter and whether it would have made same decision if it had known about the Highways Authority’s concerns about the technical note.
36. The question for the committee was whether the impact on traffic, parking and highway safety was sufficient to refuse the planning application. It was aware of the objections on this point and that there were concerns about the technical note’s calculations and the chair at least was aware of highways concerns. Members had an opportunity to ask more about this in the meeting but considered they had enough information. They considered the impact on traffic and parking, and were aware of the poor public transport. They considered the benefits of the development outweighed the concerns and that there were no grounds to refuse the permission.
37. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
38. I find, on the balance of probabilities, that even if the committee had been aware of the Highways Authority response to the technical note, it would have approved the application. This means that even though there was fault, it has not caused injustice to Mr D as the planning outcome would have been the same

Back to top

Final decision

39. There was fault by the Council but this did not cause injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman